Server 2008 as Workstation.

S

SulSeeker

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
574
So I decided to give this a try...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...4C-A40E-4FD2-A0F7-32212B520F50&displaylang=en

http://win2k8.msfn.org/

and the only issue I'm running into is i have 915g onboard graphics and there's no driver for it. All in all tho its very responsive, 64bit, and running great. Only 60 day evaulation tho. So thats kinda Bleh...


BENCHMARKS!!!

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windows-2008-vista-done-right.html

http://www.vista123.net/content/xp-vista-sp1-2008-x86-and-x64-benchmark

Ok, I know it's not robust for benchmarks, but gives you an idea.

And finally, the specs on this boxen.

Pentium 531, 768 Ram, 250gb 2.5" HDD, Realteck AC '97 sound (Vista x64 drivers), Intel 915G w/ no drivers. The issue with the graphics is a know issue, but server 2008 just checks the video memory for capabilities cause I can go up to 1600x1200 in the display adaptor properties. Currently 1280x1024x32.

Anyway, Thought I'd throw it out there and see where it goes.
 
That does sound pretty interesting, we have it setup at work as an evaluation atm, and it does seem a lot more responsive that vista home.

You'll have to keep us updated with how you get on day to day, as i can't imagine it being as straightforward.
 
We have like 9 of these threads already, a simple search would have just brought them up so you could add to 'em. Yes, the same links, the same reviews, benchmarks, etc...

If you're using 2K8 64 bit, the XP x64 driver should work for that just fine. You're not going to get massive performance from it, I hope you understand that. To be honest, the stock 2K8 VGA driver is damned fast for most 2D operations, but it will lag out during heavy activity or with a lot of animated stuff going on (a webpage full of Flash banners, etc).
 
Joe, You're right, I didn't serch, just looked at the first page and didn't see anything. For some reason I thought it would be stickied tho... It's one heck of an alternative vs Vista.
 
Yah, I/we know, I myself have used 2K8 as a workstation on various occasions of late, and am a big proponent of doing so as my many posts in those threads will attest. The only real benchmarks that matter, however, are those you'd run yourself. The ones from those Exo people are usually tainted and BS just to give them something to publish and generate traffic to their website. Last year they did an XP beta SP3 vs Vista beta SP1 comparison and said stuff that wasn't quite true, wasn't quite something you could duplicate like they claimed you could, and a whole host of other BS that did nothing but generate traffic to their site.

I did the same tests according to their own specs and never saw more than a half-percentage point difference - that's .5% - either way. So, benchmarks, schmenchmarks... :)

And I've used 2K3 as a workstation since it came out years ago also. Same basic concepts as 2K8 in terms of "Workstation" usage.
 
Are these the same people who claim that XP is twice as fast as Vista in the very important task of using Microsoft Office impossibly quickly? Hrm.

There are other benchmarks suggesting that there's no difference:
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=596

And I'd still like to know why Microsoft would put the crazy-awesome speed boost feature that no-one can identify in Server 2008 but neglect to put it in the equally-important client OS which people are dragging their heels about adopting because they think it's slow.
 
Well, all I know is to every person that says Vista SP1 = Server 2008 I just laugh. They're not the same OS, the kernels are incredibly similar but still not exactly the same, most of the rest of the OS it incredibly similar but still not exactly the same too.

It's not faster just because a bunch of shit is turned off by default, either.

But really, I could care less why it's faster, it just is, by a very noticeable margin, so what else matters?
 
Joe Average said:
Well, all I know is to every person that says Vista SP1 = Server 2008 I just laugh. They're not the same OS, the kernels are incredibly similar but still not exactly the same, most of the rest of the OS it incredibly similar but still not exactly the same too.

It's not faster just because a bunch of shit is turned off by default, either.

But really, I could care less why it's faster, it just is, by a very noticeable margin, so what else matters?
Click to expand...

I'm on the verge of using Server 2008 as a Vista machine in vmware at my workplace because it handles low memory much better than Vista seems to. In Vista, even when you cut off all of the pretty gui features and tell it to adjust for best performance, it still chugs along with 512mb of ram.

Server 2008 is blazing by comparison on only 384mb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top